McGee v. AC and S, Inc.
933 So.2d 770 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Loss of enjoyment of life is a compensable element of general damages that is conceptually distinct from pain and suffering and may be awarded as a separate line item on a jury verdict form. However, this recovery is limited to the direct victim's own loss sustained during their lifetime and is not available to family members whose similar losses are covered by claims for loss of consortium or wrongful death.
Facts:
- James Edward McGee was employed by various companies where he was exposed to asbestos-containing products.
- The asbestos exposure was allegedly caused by his employers and the manufacturers of the products.
- As a result of the exposure, James Edward McGee developed a fatal illness.
- James Edward McGee died from this illness on January 28, 2000.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty McGee and her children (plaintiffs) filed wrongful death and survival actions against A C AND S, Inc. and other defendants in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- Defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude plaintiffs from asserting a claim for loss of enjoyment of life as a separate category of damages.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion in limine.
- Defendants (as applicants) applied for supervisory writs to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the writ, reversed the district court's ruling, and granted the defendants' motion in limine.
- Plaintiffs (as applicants) then applied for supervisory writs to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which granted the application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Louisiana law permit loss of enjoyment of life to be awarded as a separate element of general damages that can be listed as a distinct item on a jury verdict form?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kimball
Yes, loss of enjoyment of life is a recoverable element of general damages that may be included as a separate item on a jury verdict form. The court reasoned that 'loss of enjoyment of life,' also known as hedonic damages, falls within the established definition of general damages, which includes 'the loss of gratification of intellectual or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or life-style.' While it is a component of general damages, it is conceptually distinct from pain and suffering. Pain and suffering refers to the physical and emotional trauma of an injury, whereas loss of enjoyment of life refers to the detrimental alterations to a person's lifestyle and inability to participate in activities formerly enjoyed. The court resolved a split among Louisiana's circuit courts, aligning with the majority of circuits that permit a separate award. This separation is not duplicative if the jury is properly instructed. However, the court limited this recovery to the primary tort victim's claim (in a survival action), precluding family members from recovering for their own loss of enjoyment of life, as that would be duplicative of damages for loss of consortium or wrongful death.
Dissenting - Justice Victory
No, a separate award for loss of enjoyment of life should not be permitted because it is duplicative of damages already awarded for mental pain and suffering. The dissent argues that the inability to enjoy life is an inherent component of mental anguish. Creating a separate category for 'hedonic damages' upsets the balance of Louisiana's unified concept of general damages and risks a 'double recovery' for a single harm. The opinion suggests this opens the door to an endless list of subcategories for damages and notes that the legislature, which has created other specific damage categories like loss of consortium, has not done so for loss of enjoyment of life, implying it is already covered under existing general damage principles.
Dissenting - Justice Weimer
No, allowing separate line items on a jury verdict for both mental pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life results in a duplicative award. This dissent posits that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are two sides of the same coin, and an award for pain and suffering can adequately compensate for the loss of pleasure. While a theoretical distinction exists, it is too fine for a jury to practically apply without overlap. To avoid duplication, a trial court should allow an itemized award for either mental pain and suffering or loss of enjoyment of life, but not both, or alternatively, use a single combined line item for both.
Concurring - Justice Knoll
Yes, loss of enjoyment of life may be recoverable as a separate element of damages. This opinion was written to explain the author's change of position from a prior appellate court dissent on the same issue. The justice now believes the issue is more complex than originally thought and that subsequent jurisprudential developments support a more cautious, case-by-case approach to such damage awards.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant circuit split in Louisiana, formally establishing that 'loss of enjoyment of life' can be itemized separately from 'pain and suffering' on a jury verdict form. The ruling provides plaintiffs with a new avenue to articulate and quantify a specific type of non-economic loss, potentially leading to higher general damage awards if the evidence supports it. By clarifying that this claim is exclusive to the direct victim in a survival action and not available to family members in wrongful death claims, the court prevents duplicative recovery and reinforces the distinct nature of these actions. This case sets a precedent that will guide trial courts in crafting jury instructions and verdict forms in personal injury and survival actions statewide.
Unlock the full brief for McGee v. AC and S, Inc.